we hunted the mammothhttp://wehuntedthemammoth.com
the new misogyny, tracked and mockedSun, 02 Aug 2015 19:58:13 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/http://0.gravatar.com/blavatar/2882c2cf55b3593a05e4357c52dd886a?s=96&d=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.pngwe hunted the mammothhttp://wehuntedthemammoth.com
Oh my Lorem! The Sarkeesian Effect premiere was an even more glorious fiasco than we could have possibly imaginedhttp://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/08/01/oh-my-lorem-the-sarkeesian-effect-premiere-was-an-even-more-glorious-fiasco-than-we-could-have-possibly-imagined/
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/08/01/oh-my-lorem-the-sarkeesian-effect-premiere-was-an-even-more-glorious-fiasco-than-we-could-have-possibly-imagined/#commentsSat, 01 Aug 2015 18:17:32 +0000http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/?p=17437]]>

This popcorn is delicious indeed.

Last night was the grand premiere of The Sarkeesian Effect (Team Jordan Owen Edition), and the response from critics and audience members alike has been overwhelming!

That video of crickets has gotten more than 3,344,825 views on Youtube. That’s 371,647 times the number of people who apparently showed up at the Sarkeesian Effect premiere/#GamerGate Meetup at the Landmark Midtown Art Cinema in Atlanta last night.

Yep. According to the organizer of the #GamerGate meetup, only nine people showed. Including the director.

Meanwhile, on Reddit’s Kotaku In Action subreddit, one of the main #GamerGate hubs, the excitement was palpable.

Even Jordan Owen — the director of this incarnation of the Sarkeesian Effect — was uncharacteristically quiet; his reports from the premiere consisted mainly of photos of the screen, evidently his attempt to prove to the critics that, yes, the film exists.

Those last two pics seem to suggest that the insidious “Sarkeesian Effect” that gave the film its title is Ms. Sarkeesian’s uncanny ability to cause her critics to wear plaid shirts vaguely similar to her own signature look.

Online, the only people excited about the event that I could find were an assortment of popcorn-munching critics of #GamerGate. And they were mostly excited about the discovery of the official Sarkeesian Effect website.

Sorry, I meant to say the discovery of ANOTHER official Sarkeesian Effect website.

You may vaguely remember the official website, unveiled several months back, an amateurish unfinished job, with crappy graphics; the links on the front page to the film’s trailer, press coverage, Sarkeesian Effect wallpapers (!), and a list of theaters showing the film (!!) all led to this page:

And they still do.

Owen says that this unfinished mess of a website is still the official Sarkeesian Effect website. But now it’s been joined by a second unfinished mess of a website that also seems to be staking a claim as the official Sarkeesian Effect website. It’s not clear if this new site is the handiwork of Davis Aurini, or if Owen hired someone to put it together and just forgot about it.

Weirdly, this last option seems the most probable. Given that the site was promoting the premiere last night — a premiere of Owen’s version of the film, which Aurini had disavowed in advance — it seems unlikely that Aurini had anything to do with it.

While a teensy bit slicker than the original, the new site isn’t quite ready for public consumption. Here, for example, are the bios of some of the famous NAMES interviewed in the film.

Yes, that’s right: Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s …

Also, Karen Straughan — the blabby FeMRA videoblogger and “Honey Badger” — is actually three women sitting next to each other.

Alas, the now-feuding “filmmakers” behind the “film” don’t fare any better themselves. In addition to giving both of them the Lorem treatment, whoever made the site also managed to misspell Aurini’s last name.

Clearly, from now on, Davis Aurini will be known as Davis-a-rooni.

Even the site’s Quick FAQs section has an impressive Lorem ratio.

And, yes, it is true that FILM starring NAME, NAME and NAME, has been featured on MEDIA.

This site, as, er, wildly optimistic about the commercial prospects of The Sarkeesian Effect as the old site, also includes a link to theaters showing the film. But instead of leading to a “Coming Soon” page, the new site links instead to … a blank page on Google Docs.

I can only hope that the film itself — presumably headed ultimately for a YouTube release — lives up to this amazing website.

Sorry. I mean BOTH films live up to BOTH websites.

H/T — @tortoiseontour, who alerted me to the website and pointed out the misspelling of Aurini’s name.

But when AVFM’s recently appointed News Director Ty Henry wrote a post arguing that Cosby “should receive no safe harbor in the MHRM [Men’s Huan Rights Movement],” well, the powers that be told him to take a hike, rejecting his post and ultimately firing him from AVFM.

The only reason I know about any of this is that AVFM’s suspended-on-Twitter “social media director” Janet “JudgyBitch” Bloomfield agreed to post it on her blog instead, explaining that

This article caused some controversy in the AVfM pool, with some strongly feeling it should be run and some strongly feeling it shouldn’t. In the interests of making sure no one feels their voice is quashed, I offered to run the controversial piece. I don’t necessarily agree with Ty Henry, the author, but since I have different editorial standards (some might say none) than AVfM, I’m running the piece to allow people to satisfy their curiosity.

So what exactly were the heretical thoughts that apparently got Henry’s piece banished from AVFM?

Well, for one thing, like most sensible people, Henry thinks Cosby is almost certainly guilty:

Considering his settlement in 2006, and recent disclosures, it’s pretty clear Bill Cosby likely violated the foregoing sovereignty of at least two women, the evidence his very own tongue. He’s also likely guilty of assaulting at least some of the women who have come forward, both in recent years, and going back to the 70s. Based on the totality of circumstances, to believe otherwise is to make his innocence an article of faith.

But perhaps even more galling for the AVFMistas, Henry bluntly points out the hypocrisy of those MRAs who loudly declare “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” every time a man is accused of rape, while offering no similar “due process” to women accusing men of rape.

The due process clause protects Cosby from the randomness of mob-justice fueled prosecution, as it should. I’m not here to advocate for ad-hoc suspension of the Criminal Rules of Evidence or Statutes of Limitations. It does not, however, shield him or his acts from the ruthless glare of critical inquiry.

A little pretentiously put, but possibly the most sensible thing I’ve ever heard an MRA say.

Henry continues, noting one case (of many) in which AVFMers have been happy to forget about that whole “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” thing:

[C]onsider this; Emma Sulkowicz has not been charged with, nor sued for, false accusations. So why do these pages label her such, including our venerable CEO? Reasonable inferences based on statements, facts and evidence in the public square, that’s why.

Well, I didn’t say that everything Henry had to say was perfect.

After detailing some of the many reasons we have to believe that Cosby is indeed guilty, Henry argues that even though Cosby will almost certainly not spend even a day in prison, he fully deserves having his reputation wrecked in the court of public opinion.

Bill Cosby is unlikely to serve jail time for his transgressions. Such is the nature of due process, as statutes of limitations have run, and with forensic evidence having long since dissolved, most of these cases would be dismissed at trial anyway. That should have no bearing, however, on his legacy henceforth.

His hypocrisy and repugnant violations of the rights of women is now the dominant feature of that legacy, and should these women secure some financial redress , that is more than he deserves for both his behavior and his casual, yet malignant, insouciance in the face of their years of suffering. For that, he should receive no safe harbor in the MHRM.

In a remarkable postscript to his post, Henry notes that he actually sort-of knew one of Cosby’s accusers, Andrea Constand, from her college basketball days, and that this makes him even more sure that she is telling the truth.

I’m on the record now saying her courage in coming forward, unsealing painful memories to help others clear their besmirched names, makes me even prouder to be an Arizona Wildcat. I stand with Andrea, even if I must stand alone on these pages.

And that’s the news AVFM deems unfit to print … though not if you believe Paul Elam, Henry’s ex-boss at AVFM.In the comments on JudgyBitch’s blog, Elam claims Henry’s published post is different from the one he tried to get published at AVFM.

His original piece included the term “Bill Cosby is a serial rapist,..” a flat declaration of guilt. That was the precise reason why the piece was rejected. He was also offered the opportunity to retool the piece, sans the declaration of guilt, which we would have been more likely to run.

Given Elam’s not-exactly stellar track record with the truth, I’m not sure I buy any of this. Even if Henry’s original post did contain the phrase “Bill Cosby is a serial rapist,” AVFM makes “flat declarations of guilt” and all sorts of categorical (and categorically false) statements about feminists all the time; I’ve lost track of how often they’ve libelled me. So the idea that Elam was protecting AVFM’s editorial integrity is laughable at best; AVFM has no editorial integrity.We’ll just have to see how this develops, won’t we?

Who will be the next to jump (or get shoved) off the bad ship A Voice for Men?

Hopes that another panda cub would soon be born in Taiwan were dashed when experts determined that signs of pregnancy displayed by a giant panda at Taipei Zoo appear to have been faked by the animal in order to secure better conditions during the summer.

According to the article,

Pandas thought to be pregnant are moved into single rooms with air conditioning and round-the-clock care and also receive more fruits and bamboo.

Experts believe clever pandas display behavior similar to pregnancy to improve their quality of life after noticing the difference in treatment they receive.

Apparently this panda went a bit further than most. The article reports that the panda in question, a lovely lass named Yuan Yuan,

had shown signs of pregnancy such as loss of appetite, thickening of the uterus and increased fecal progesterone concentration.

Uh, how exactly would one go about faking “thickening of the uterus” or “increased fecal progesterone concentration?” The article doesn’t say.

In it, Elam suggested that Cosby’s 46 (so far) accusers were nothing “a bunch of greedy women who commoditized their bodies like groupies” in order to get drugs from the comedian, indulging in an age-old transactional sort of sex that Elam referred to, with his customary delicacy, as “gash for stash.”

I didn’t think AVFM’s ongoing, er, coverage of Cosby could get any more ludicrous than that. Then yesterday a post by Jonathan David Farley appeared on the site with the headline:

As it turns out, Farley spends little time meditating on Cosby’s peculiar version of “love.” The bulk of the post instead offers a highly selective “reading” of Cosby’s deposition to prove that the “liberal media” is lying about Cosby:

[A]t no point in the purported deposition transcript does Bill Cosby admit to drugging women in order to rape them. But a dying newspaper industry seeking easy clicks can hide behind the fig leaf of Fallwell v. Flynt─newspapers can basically lie about public figures with impunity─rather than present confirmed facts.

Naturally, this being AVFM, the post offers no evidence whatsoever that the “liberal media” is lying.

It’s just a teensy bit hypocritical to attack the media for allegedly not “present[ing] confirmed facts” when you present none yourself.

Farley starts off his post with this claim:

The media is breathlessly reporting that “Bill Cosby Admitted To Drugging Women In 2005 Deposition,” the implication being that he gave women drugs without their knowledge to knock them unconscious and then have relations with them.

Farley’s evidence for this assertion? He provides none.

Which makes a certain kind of sense, because that’s not what the media has reported, “breathlessly” or otherwise. Sure, a few careless headlines did in fact declare that Cosby had admitted to giving women (plural) drugs and having sex with them.

But most serious media outlets were in fact quite careful about getting the details exactly right, reporting that Cosby had admitted only to procuring drugs with the intention of giving them to women, and that he had only explicitly admitted to giving the drugs to one woman.

As you can see, all but one of the headlines, from an assortment of major media outlets including the BBC and the Washington Post, report what is in the deposition exactly. The only outlet to declare, incorrectly, that Cosby had admitted to drugging women — plural — was Fox News, not exactly a bastion of the “liberal media.”

That said, it’s certainly true that plenty of people believe that Cosby actually gave women the drugs he got in order to give them to women.

Hell, even Farley’s boss at AVFM, the aforementioned Paul Elam, thinks so, writing in his post last month that Cosby had “probably” used “his fame, fortune and pharmaceuticals to grease the wheels of his sex life?”

Farley also tries to insinuate that the deposition itself is somehow unreliable.

Question the source: the document was created by one of Bill Cosby’s accusers. It makes far-from-objective statements like “[Bill Cosby’s] testimony become [sic] more and more unbelievable” (page 20).

While the document that Farley points towas prepared by a lawyer for one of Cosby’s accusers, not even Cosby’s lawyers are suggesting that the extensive excerpts from Cosby’s deposition that appear in it are distorted or fabricated. While his lawyers aren’t happy about any portion of Cosby’s deposition being made public, they don’t deny that Cosby said what he said.

Ironically, Farley himself blatantly misrepresents what’s in the deposition:

The anti-Cosby articles insist that none of the accusers are in it for the money, but the deposition reveals how false this is: The hostile lawyer asks, “Mr. Cosby, did you believe that T—— P—– would go to the press with her story when you sent her the money?”

There is zero evidence in the deposition that any women demanded money from Cosby, though there’s no question that he sent money to some.

In the deposition, Cosby admitted that he’d offered money to the plaintiff in the case. But he explicitly denied that she or her mother had demanded hush money from him — or that he’d ever claimed that. As the defense attorneys summarized what he said:

Defendant testified that even though both Plaintiff and her mother told him that all they wanted was an apology, he called Plaintiff’s home and spoke to her mother to offer money for Plaintiff’s “education.”

And here it is in Cosby’s own words. Or, rather word.

Q. So, you did not believe that [name redacted by DF] or her mother wanted money from you at the time they made the phone calls to you?

A. No.

While nothing in Cosby’s deposition proves that he’s a woman-drugging serial rapist, it certainly seems to back up a good number of the allegations made against him, and at the very least reveals him to be a sleazy adulterous creep.

But the main conclusion that Farley draws from it all is … this:

The old saying is still true: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Clearly, Farley has a much bigger problem with the facts — not to mention reality itself — than the “liberal media” he’s criticizing.

He also has, as you might have noticed, a teensy bit of a preoccupation with Jewish people. Indeed, he’s something of an expert at working the fact (or the fantasy) of a person’s Jewishness into stories in which said person’s Jewishness is not really the story at all.

But let’s not get bogged down in mere details like that. Because, as Anglin sees it, Jewish fingerprints are all over the terrible smearing of The Donald, who is, incidentally, the darling of the neo-Nazi crowd at the moment.

The J, E, and W keys on Anglin’s laptop get quite a workout as he sets forth his accusations:

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, there is no doubt that most of the hardcore opposition to him is coming from the Jews. It was a Jew who tried to stump him on the John McCain war hero gibberish, Jewish-owned media outlets coming at him 24/7.

And Jews are a people whom no one has ever accused of having shame. They are now bringing up an ancient rape allegation (which was not actually a rape allegation) made by Trump’s wife, Ivana, during their divorce in the nineties.

The Jewish publication The Daily Beast was the first to unearth this hoax in an article written by Tim Mak (Asian) and Brandy Zadrozny (Jew).

But wait! It seems as though there’s a teensy weensy little schtikel of a flaw in Anglin’s Jewspiracy theory here.

Because, as you may recall, the Trump lawyer who got o much attention yesterday for defending his boss in a most Trumpian manner — with bluster and nonsense and a heavy dollop of attempted intimidation — was a guy named Michael Cohen.

Now, I’m no Hitler, but even I know that’s a Jewish name.

A Jew defending Trump against … the Jews? This Jewspiracy theory seems to have fallen as flat as unleavened bread.

But Anglin, an old pro in the anti-Semitism game, manages to work Cohen into his Jewspiracy theory.

What is interesting about the situation, from an anti-Semitic angle, is how horrible Trump’s Jewish lawyer, Michael Cohen, responded to the Asian reporter. …

Why would Cohen, who is surely a shrewd Jew, deal so horribly with a reporter, making a statement so offensive to modern sensibilities?

If I didn’t know better (and believe me, I don’t), I would almost wonder if this Jew working for Trump is purposefully attempting to sabotage his campaign.

And I am not asserting a conspiracy theory here. I am not suggesting some other Jew called up Cohen and told him he’d better serve the tribe and sabotage the Donald. The word “purposeful” wouldn’t even be explicitly accurate. The way Jewish psychology works, they subconsciously sense threats to their tribe, then act out based on these perceived threats. …

Well, it seems as though Anglin has this case all wrapped up, with no loose ends, like he’s a detective on Law & Order: Anti-Semite Unit.

But, to invoke an entirely different TV detective, there’s just one more thing that’s bugging me here.

Because, ok, so it’s Anglin’s contention that it was Michael Cohen’s evil Jewy unconscious that led him to behave in a way that made Trump look even worse than he already does?

Who else talked about the unconscious mind a lot? You know, he didn’t really invent the idea, per se, but he was the one that got people talking about it at cocktail parties for like a century.

Andrew Anglin, the supposedly Jew-hating, Hitler-loving dude behind The Daily Stormer, is working for the Jews!

All I can say to you, Andrew, is welcome aboard!

There’s lox and bagels in the break room.

]]>http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/07/29/the-daily-stormer-defends-its-hero-donald-trump-against-the-elders-of-zion-and-the-daily-beast/feed/83manboobzTrump waves hello to his growing army of neo-Nazi fans7461461285991def33dbc517acbf071eNewly free from A Voice for Men, Dean Esmay continues on being a dickhttp://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/07/29/newly-free-from-a-voice-for-men-dean-esmay-continues-on-being-a-dick/
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/07/29/newly-free-from-a-voice-for-men-dean-esmay-continues-on-being-a-dick/#commentsWed, 29 Jul 2015 13:16:33 +0000http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/?p=17396]]>

So far that “new direction” looks suspiciously like the “old direction.” While Esmay has reduced the frequency of his intemperate, accusatory, free-associational Tweets from a flood to a trickle, he hasn’t stopped Tweeting — apparently his primary form of “Activism” for now — and his Tweets are as intemperate, accusatory, and free-associational as ever.

He’s still attacking anyone even vaguely critical of the Men’s Rights movement as “lying bigots;” describing anyone even vaguely critical of him as “cyberbullies” and maybe even paidshills; and making bizarre pronouncements to no on in particular.

Here he is offering his take on the rather fraught issue of women in STEM.

Obviously women in tech don't need to know how to code for shit. They just need to learn to whine, rage and bully. See Randi Harper.

Here he is trying to convince the world that Washington Post writer Caitlin Dewey is a “cyberbully” … by spamming her Twitter account with attacks on her. Oh, and spamming the Twitter account of a completely different and utter;y unrelated woman named Caitlyn Dewey, who spells her first name with a Y.

Donald Trump on the man who reported Ivana Trump’s allegations: “He is a guy that is an unattractive guy.”

People in glass Trump Towers shouldn’t throw stones — or, perhaps, throw around accusations of rape, as one Donald Trump did recently in his now infamous remarks suggesting that Mexican immigrants are a bunch of rapists.

A must-read story yesterday in The Daily Beast points out that Trump is not only a rape accuser of sorts, but someone who was once very publicly accused of rape — by his now-former wife Ivana Trump, who, in a deposition in her divorce case against the Donald in the early 90s, said that she’s been attacked one night by her then husband in a fit of rage, screaming at her and pulling out her hair before ripping off her clothes and raping her.

The Beast reports that, according to Lost Tycoon, a 1993 book about Trump by journalist Harry Hurt III, Ivana told her closest friends that “he raped me.” Later, though, in a statement she provided through Trump’s lawyers, and that was reprinted in the book as “A Notice to Readers,” Ivana backed away from the R-word, saying that

[a]s a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.

Make of that what you will.

At the time, the Daily Beast notes, Trump declared the account in the book

incorrect and done by a guy without much talent … He is a guy that is an unattractive guy who is a vindictive and jealous person.

Very Trumpian.

But even more remarkable than this bizarre denial was the even Trumpier response that Michael Cohen, one of Trump’s lawyers, gave to the Daily Beast writer who asked him about the allegations:

You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual who never raped anybody.

Evidently one cannot be a rapist if one is polling better than Jeb Bush.

Cohen continued:

And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.

As the Beast points out, Cohen is completely wrong here. Not only is marital rape illegal in New York state now; it was illegal in New York state in 1989, the date of the alleged rape.

“I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know,” Cohen said. “So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?”

“You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up…for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet…you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it,” he added.

Someone’s a bit grouchy.

Cohen continued, telling the Beast that

there is nothing reasonable about you wanting to write a story about somebody’s usage of the word ‘rape,’ when she’s talking [about] she didn’t feel emotionally satisfied.”

“Though there’s many literal senses to the word, if you distort it, and you put Mr. Trump’s name there onto it, rest assured, you will suffer the consequences. So you do whatever you want. You want to ruin your life at the age of 20? You do that, and I’ll be happy to serve it right up to you,” he added.

Given that the Beast ran the story, and we’re talking about it now, it kind of, sort of, appears that Cohen’s Trumpian lawyering backfired a little bit. And that’s a very good thing, because this is a story that needs to be re-aired.

So over the weekend some enterprising 4channer decided to try to create some mayhem and make a few quick bucks by concocting a fake feminist conference, and selling tickets to it.

He — I’m pretty sure it was a he — headed to /b/ to round up some accomplices.

The co-conspirators assembled in a TinyChat to work out the details of this brilliant scheme.

BE SURE TO SPELL FEMINIST CORRECTLY OR NOBODY WILL BELIEVE YOU.

Alas! Someone must have spelled feminist incorrectly, because as it turns out, no one did believe them, and word quickly spread on Twitter that FEMCON2015 was indeed a CON.

It didn’t exactly help that, their entire knowledge of feminism seemingly derived from antifeminist memess, none of the FEMCON2015 promoters had any idea what real feminists sound like, and the fake feminist Twitter accounts they set up were about as believable as Steve Buscemi’s undercover teenager on 30 Rock.

Here are some of the highlights from the would-be FEMCON artists’ brief careers on Twitter.

The OFFICIAL fake account of the fake conference — which has now apparently been banned — tried to whip up fake enthusiasm for the fake conference:

Looking at @Femcon2015’s tweets last night, before the account vanished, I noticed “she” had 85 followers, pretty good for a brand-new non-celebrity account. Let’s see what some of these followers had to say!

Look these women in the face, and tell me they’re lying. Read their accounts, and tell me they’re lying. Watch the videos in which six of these women tell their stories to the cameras, and tell me they’re lying. Each and every one of them.

This is Lili Bernard. Is she lying?

Go watch her video and tell me that.

This is Victoria Valentino. Is she lying?

Go watch her video and tell me that.

This is Louisa Moritz. Is she lying?

Go watch her video and tell me that.

I believe all of these women. Their stories are all too believable, and all chillingly similar. Not identical, as if they’re reading off a script, but similar, in that they all describe a practiced predator with a standard MO.

But, Cosby defenders, you don’t have to believe all of them. If only one of them is telling the truth, Cosby is a lying, sleazy, predatory rapist.

Can you honestly tell me you think each and every one of these women are lying?

—

Please read the newly revised COMMENTS POLICY before commenting. Rape apologists will be banned. If you feel compelled to tell me you think all these women are lying, send me an email.

]]>http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/07/27/hey-cosby-defenders-look-these-women-in-the-face-and-tell-me-theyre-lying-all-of-them/feed/120manboobzClick image to see a larger version.cosbyLiliBernardCosbycosbyLouiseLesbianism is a plot to deny men sex with hot women before they get old, Red Piller explainshttp://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/07/26/lesbianism-is-a-plot-to-deny-men-sex-with-hot-women-before-they-get-old-red-piller-explains/
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/07/26/lesbianism-is-a-plot-to-deny-men-sex-with-hot-women-before-they-get-old-red-piller-explains/#commentsMon, 27 Jul 2015 02:30:48 +0000http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/?p=17354]]>

By the time she switches to men …. it’ll be too late! (Because she’ll be old and ugly by then.)

Scientists may not have the whole “what causes homosexuality” thing figured out to everyone’s satisfaction yet, but one Red Pill Redditor thinks he has an answer.

Shockingly, it has to do with his boner, and the fact that not all women are interested in it.

The rest of the Reddit thread contains numerous other Red Pillers offering their own theories about lesbians, so, er, go read that if you want to bathe more in the intellectual equivalent of a fetid hot tub filled with red bull, ignorance, and poop.

]]>http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/07/26/lesbianism-is-a-plot-to-deny-men-sex-with-hot-women-before-they-get-old-red-piller-explains/feed/106manboobzBy the time she switches to men .... it'll be too late! (Because she'll be old and ugly by then.) LionLaw 49 points 17 hours ago* I feel like being a lesbian is a phase for women, something they all eventually grow out of (for the most part) once the threat of the wall becomes all too real. Maybe not a "phase" per se, but more like an excuse to waste away her youth and good looks before her beta in shining glasses comes to marry her while she fucks chad on da side. Edit: Jesus, I wouldn't touch those women with a stick